Las Vegas 2020
Work Radical: How Radically Collaborative Organizations Out Recruit, Out Retain, and Out Innovate the Competition
The traditional enterprise's days are numbered; radically collaborative organizations are out recruiting, out retaining, and out innovating the competition.
In this talk, Matt K. Parker, author of the upcoming book "Work Radical" from IT Revolution, will introduce you to a number of organizations practicing radical collaboration. He'll show you how radical collaborators disrupt through learning, caring, and safe-making.
You'll see how those values lead to radically collaborative team structures, like autonomy of space, autonomy of practice, and autonomy of allocation. And he'll explain how those structures lead organizations to be adaptive, addictive, and viral. He'll also tell you a little known story about a radically collaborative alternative to the Toyota Way.
Don't miss this compelling look into the history and promise of radical collaboration!
MP
Matthew Parker
Author, Work Radical
Transcript
Hi, my name is Matt Parker. Um, you can find me on Twitter, real Matt K Parker. Um, I've never spoken at DevOps enterprise summit before. So before I get into the talk, I'm just going to share a few things about myself, to introduce myself to this awesome audience. I hope to be back at future talks as well. Um, so I'm an author. I'm working on a book. It has the same title as this talk it's called work radical. It's about radically collaborative organizations and I'm working with it revolution on that book and the same publisher that puts together this conference. And I'm really thankful to be working with them. They're amazing. Um, something you might remember me by I'm a third generation programmer. My dad was a programmer. His dad was a programmer. Um, my oldest daughter is learning programming right now, so maybe she will decide that she really wants to stick with it and become a fourth generation programmer.
Um, that doesn't say anything about my abilities, obviously programming. It's not an inherited trait. I just think it's kind of cool. And hopefully something you can remember me by, um, before I went on hiatus to write a book by most recent roles, head of engineering at pivotal labs, which is a worldwide consultancy that specializes in extreme programming and lean product development and human centered design. So I'll have more to say about them during this talk. Um, so a couple more things I used to live here. This is the first avenue in Manhattan and, um, uh, yet, uh, last year, uh, my wife and I had decided to move ourselves and our three kids here to the wilds of Connecticut. This is the clearing behind her home. I took this with my iPhone. Um, we are super thankful and feel incredibly lucky to have made this move before the pandemic started.
Uh, I think we would have gone totally insane cooped up in her Manhattan apartment with her three kids. All right. So this talk radical collaboration. Um, I'm going to introduce a lot of the, kind of, some of the key concepts and findings. I don't have time to go into everything obviously, and, but maybe in future talks at future DevOps enterprise summit, it's helped tell more and more about the focus with the ideas and stories from it. Um, uh, the first kind of thing I want to just talk about is radical collaboration itself. What is it? So it's something I'm sure you've all experienced at some point in your life, even if it's, even if it's not the norm in your working life. Um, but if you've ever had an experience of working with someone or even playing with someone that, um, is incredibly fun yet enriching and challenging, and there's all kinds of learning that goes on in it, but it's also something that's marked by care and safety, then you radically collaborated.
Um, and I think, um, uh, it's a incredibly important and valuable experience for us to have, and there's no reason every organization out there can't be doing it. So that's why I'm passionate to give this talk and write the book. Um, I also have experienced both radically collaborative organizations in my working life, but also, um, uh, the opposite of that. And, you know, actually my first, um, internship 20 years ago almost to the day was, um, uh, in a place that looked a lot like this, it was a cube farm. And if you take away all the plants and you take away every other fluorescent light, um, it's, this is basically exactly what it looked like and notice that there are no windows. That part is actually quite accurate too, because my first internship and it was in a cube farm that was in a basement, um, and it was pretty depressing and demoralizing.
And so I wondered why matrix computer science? Um, there's this quote I read at the time today's office is a wasteland it's apps, vitality blocks, talent, frustrates accomplishment. It is the daily scene of unfulfilled intentions and failed effort. And I thought, wow, that sums up this experience perfectly. And then I figured out who actually said that it's this designer, his name was Robert props, and he was actually the inventor of the cubicle. So he was actually talking about places that looked a lot like this and like this, in other words, he was talking about the open office paradigm, which was the dominant office paradigm for the first two thirds of the 20th century. So I want to make it clear from the outset that radical collaboration has a lot more going for it than just the way the office is laid out. You can't lay an office out in a certain way and somehow generate radical collaboration.
There's a lot more to it. So that may be part of it. And we'll talk about that. Okay. Um, so radical collaboration is nothing new, it's quite old. And actually, if we just take a brief moment to look at the history of the industrial revolution till now we can sort of see it as a movement, obviously away from radical collaboration. Um, this is, uh, I love this painting it's of a early factory, um, X sort of at the Dawn of the industrial revolution. And, and this is I think, a pretty accurate sort of rendition of it based on the historical documents as well, because even though they had newfangled machines in these factories that could speed up production in certain ways, the reality was it was pretty chaotic and self-organizing all, almost all the people that came into these factories at first were really highly skilled craftspeople, um, that before this we're building products into ends like themselves or with others, um, but really just how whole wide range of skills.
And so in these early factories, they still kind of made that way and it was pretty self-organizing. And, and for the most part, a lot of these environments were radically collaborative. Um, but it didn't last long, uh, you know, by the Donald, with 20th century, um, the factories became more and more kind of mechanized and componentized and the work inside, it became very, very specialized. And you just, didn't one little thing and one little piece and pass it off to somebody else. And we made the assembly line because of that specialization. This is a Ford assembly line in the early days, and that's still the way we make today for the most part. And I'm not just cars, but all kinds of things are manufactured through the basic sort of assembly line process, whether it's lean or not. Um, and it, on the other hand, it just has led to this sort of dystopian sort of image that we see all the time now, inside factories, where it just, it feels like all the humanity and all the collaborations it's just been sucked straight out of it somehow.
Um, and you know, it's not surprising that researchers go in and discover high levels of depression and stress and anxiety among makers that make an environment like this. Okay. So most manufacturers know that the, that those kinds of things do exist. The stress, anxiety, and depression, but not a lot have actually tried to do anything about it. And Volvo is one of the exceptions in the mid seventies, they built a couple of factories where they started to experiment, iterate with, um, a different way of making. They didn't put any assembly lines in these factories and they just put teams together and said, you know what? Like can all of you just make a car in the end? What would it take? And they began to work towards a way of making that was radically different, um, from assembly line manufacturing up to that point. So let's listen to a social scientist, his first experience with, um, uh, looking at one of these environments.
He wrote about it. Um, along with many other scientists in a book he edited AKA Sandberg edited and called enriching production perspectives on Volvos, get Apollo plan as an alternative to lean production. I highly recommend checking out. It's quite fascinating, but anyways, let's just read a few of his quotes. He said, during a visit to Volvo's universal plant, the members of an assembly team casually asked if I was a customer wanting to take part in the team's assembly of my car. So the team's just like, oh yeah, you want to make a car with us. Let's do it. Um, and he said, he sat there and watched a group of nine workers, a similar car from beginning to end, and that they were kind of learning and doing it with each other and swapping roles. And they did it all before the morning coffee break and the team had no supervisor, no one was in charge.
They were just all equals and no one was telling them what to do. And his mind was blown and he had never seen something like it inside manufacturing anyways. Um, well Volvo called a group assembly and they felt at the time that it was a much more humane way of making, um, that it would be better for the makers and that it could even result in better products without sacrificing a lot of efficiency. And they were largely right. I mean, the makers loved it. Retention went up, um, passion and motivation, um, at workplace injuries almost disappeared as well, but it didn't last, although cut it. Um, uh, by the mid nineties, they were like, whoa, Toyota's just gonna blow us off the face of the earth. We have to do it their way to the Toyota way, the one true way. And that was the sort of end of the Volvo experiment, but radical collaboration didn't start with, although even though that was an example of it, and it certainly didn't end with it, there are many organizations today that are radically collaborative.
I'm going to show you a few now. Um, uh, the organization that I was, uh, just, just recently left pivotal labs is a radically collaborative organization. They had teams of product managers and designers and developers and data scientists that all work together and they're all equals on the team. But when I was in charge, um, they're often making in a very autonomous and self-organizing ways. It's really wonderful. Um, Kessel run is another example of this. They've actually worked with pivotal labs as well. Um, and they're inside the us air force. In fact, I think Adam for Tata was here at the conference giving a talk. So I highly recommend checking it out, but they're radically collaborative too. And they, they even explicitly say that at Kessel run ideas, take precedence over military rank. And obviously that's a pretty radical idea inside the military. Uh, home Depot is another radically collaborative organization.
So people that work at their corporate headquarters have to Don aprons and go inside the stores and actually do the job of the associates that work in their stores because at the corporate headquarters, their job is to support those people and they can't support them unless I actually get out there and work with them and understand the problems that they have in the software makers do the same sort of thing at home Depot. And it's really amazing to watch. Um, Patagonia incorporated makes clothing. Um, they make, uh, outdoor clothing for like rock climbers and nature enthusiasts, and they are radically collaborative as well. And, uh, talk about this more later in the talk, but the teaser is they have one of the highest retention rates on the planet. It's pretty amazing. Okay. So lots of organizations are out there doing it. What's the essence of it.
So I've found that they all embrace three certain values, learning, caring, and safe making. And I'll talk about those a little bit, and that it generates certain types of structures that team leadership and organizational levels on time to talk about some of the teams structures will be things like autonomy of space, autonomy of allocation, autonomy of practice. Um, so it leads to three traits though. It's a very adaptive organization, the experience of working there, it's actually pretty addictive and it's also a really viral experience, right? Like radical collaboration spreads to others. And that leads to very kind of direct line to three certain outcomes if it's viral well, these organizations and about recruiting their competition. And, um, because the experience is pretty magical and addictive, they ended up out retaining their competition rates. So they had very high, very high retention rates and because they're so adaptive and so kind of capable of changing course, they end up innovating the competition a lot of the times.
Okay. So the values to the structures, to the traits, to the outcomes, I don't have time to go into all of that at all. And it's pretty short talks. I'll talk a little bit about values, a little bit about structures. I'll largely traits it outcomes for future talks. Okay. Learning, caring, and safe making. No, it's pretty cliche today to say, as an organization who value learning, most organizations say that, but I feel like most of them don't really mean it, you know, they value, you know, Hey, go do this training and learn the skill and master it so you can be more efficient, but the kind of learning that radically collaborative organizations embraces co-learning. So it's much more open-ended it's from and with each other. Um, and, uh, it's actually pretty hard to, in fact, my first experience with it was at pivotal labs. I had never experienced it before I got a job there.
And, uh, like my first day was pair programming and it just blew my mind. It was, uh, an amazing experience and it was humbling and it was terrifying all at the same time. And I had been programming for 10 years longer than my pair. And I thought I was coming in as a senior engineer and he programmed circles around me. And I was, I was, uh, I was pretty terrified of the experience actually at first. And, um, he was a machine. He just kept pulling story after story at the top of the backlog. And by the end of the day, I was so exhausted that I went home and I ate a bowl of cereal and I went to bed and I didn't wake up until, um, my alarm went off the next morning and I slept 11 hours straight. And that was kind of like my day, um, experience for the next couple of weeks.
So I'm not alone in having an experience like that. And the first experience that you have with radical collaboration, social scientists would have predicted my experience. Actually. They also discovered that adults just in general struggle with co-learning much more than children too. And so I think if we look at that for a second, we can really begin to understand something about what it is. That's both very special and very sort of challenging about radical collaboration. Um, I'm sure you've heard of the marshmallow challenge, right? Give these people like twine and spaghetti sticks and some tape and a marshmallow, and they have to build a tallest freestanding structure that they can look in support the way to the marshmallow. Well, it turns out the adults really are bad at this and kids are pretty amazing at it. So adults spend a lot of time doing this, right?
Like, oh, what should we do? What do you think? What do you think? Should we try this? I don't know. Right. And they're all kind of scared to try something and kids just like dive right in and do it. Right. They don't wait at all. They just try stuff and they fail and they try again. Um, and so the question becomes, why, why do kids do so well at it? And why do adults stink at it? Um, it's because kids are just naturally radically collaborative, have no fear that they're not afraid to fail in front of their peers, because I don't think it says anything about them. Right. They don't have a self-image that you're trying to defend, but adults do. They're, they're terrified of, you know, somehow exposing that they're not perfect or that they don't know something that they think they should know.
Um, and that's, um, what I discovered that if you authentically learn, you're going to take a risk and you might learn something about yourself that really changes your own. Self-image. Um, I certainly changed my self image. When I first started doing it. I went in thinking I was here and realized I was here, but knowing the reality was also sort of liberating, but you have to be vulnerable to be able to do that kind of learning. And, um, a lot of people are just too terrified to be that vulnerable. And at first, when you are that vulnerable, it's exhausting. That's what was exhausting for me being vulnerable. But because my pair cared for me, um, uh, I was able to get through it. I love this image, by the way, it's outwards, put it out if I'm not mistaken. Um, uh, but like that kind of learning doesn't happen unless you actually care for each other.
If you don't care about somebody, you don't listen to them and they stopped saying stuff to you because I know you don't care, so you have to actually care for each other. Um, and that's what I discovered. My parents really cared for me and who cared about what I had to say. Um, and that's a pretty life-changing experience. Um, it was both very humbling to sit there and work with somebody that had been doing what I did for a lot less time than I had been doing it, and was way better at it than me, but still cared about what I had to say. Um, and I'm not alone in that experience either, right? Like most people that experience radical collaboration that persist with it, discover that there's a lot of caring involved. Um, the whole history of innovation is riddled with care as well.
You don't have to take my sort of, uh, experiences as this whole point of evidence like the Wright brothers and cared a lot about each other and that care made it possible for them to persist for years and years and years, for all kinds of failures and even full on tragedies. Um, Marie Curie and Pierre Curie really cared about each other and supported each other for years. They worked together in this makeshift laboratory, grinding down iron ores, inadvertently giving themselves radiation sickness. Um, uh, but we wouldn't know what we know about radioactivity today. We're not for the fact that they cared for each other, um, Sergei, Brin and Larry Page. They, when they first met, they disagreed about everything and yet they became friends and they actually really became good friends and really cared for each other. And, uh, the goofy stuff like this. And, um, and because they care for each other, they felt safe enough to share their ideas with each other.
And it turns out the combination of their respective interests created the search engine that has changed the world. Okay. So the other kind of flip side to care, safe making, which I want to talk for a minute about, have you ever, did you, do you know where this pain, the starry night, uh, Vincent van Gogh's painting, you may not know this, but he actually created this painting while he was in an asylum and that this asylum actually, um, before this, he was living in poverty, um, and really struggling and, you know, to be recognized for his art, but also just like where you're seeing you can kind to afford his next meal. Um, and he ended up having a nervous breakdown and he went and recuperated here very successfully actually for time anyways. Um, but while he was here, he had his own bedroom, he had his own studio, he felt a hundred percent safe.
He could paint as much as he wanted. He had more freedoms than any other patient there. Um, and so he made the story night and we all know today that, um, this is a pretty amazing painting. You know, we, we it's actually, it is the most recognized painting in Western culture. And I think most of us think it's stunningly original. Um, but it was actually born of safety. And I think that's what many of us overlook about it. Um, the reason that it was born of safety is because his needs were met, but we're not just talking about physiological needs, like food and water and air and sunshine, right? We need things like love and we need to be respected and to feel like we belong. And, you know, those are the kinds of meaningful human needs that when those needs are satisfied, we truly feel safe.
Um, and if they're not satisfied, if they're somehow threatened, we can't be creative because threats demand our attention. If a manager yells at an employee that employee can't be creative, they can't do good work. Um, now what I've discovered though, is that radically collaborative organizations are full of safety, but it's not just that radical collaborators make safety for others by their actions towards others. The truth is they also make safety for themselves, how, which was pretty surprising to discover. And they do it actually through something I've already told you about through caring. So if somebody gets mad at you and they yell at you get upset at you, if you actually care, then you will empathize with them and you will, um, actually remember that they're human and that they're struggling and that they're in need, and you will actually feel more safe in that moment than you would have.
Otherwise it won't just be a pure threat, um, because you will care about them and try to understand why it is that they're actually feeling this way. And that's what I mean, caring is a safe making. So when we care for others, what we're doing is we're putting our own significance into a much broader context, but also a much sharper relief. So that's a reframing that can result in a felt increase in their own safety. And so caring becomes a safe making. It's the thing that makes us safe to think and act with others to make and create with others and to take risks to safe make is to collaborate openly and freely and above all authentically. Okay. So that's probably not new to you. You probably already know all about psychological safety things for the pioneering researcher at Amy Edmondson. Thanks to Google. Who's done a lot to popularize it and you know, there's a whole cottage industry, uh, psych safety cottage industry out there that is, um, uh, doing a lot to educate everyone about it.
And it doesn't always feel authentic, but regardless I supported, it's gotta be hopefully good. There is a bit of a danger though. There's a small danger that we could get this wrong. And what I mean is we could, we could, we could turn psychological safety inward and weaponizing. So psychological safety could become something, a wave, a new way for us to judge other people for failing to uphold our psychological safety. Right. And if we did that, then I think we really missed a rare opportunity, right? There's a big blame culture out there in corporate America, and we could create a care culture instead.
Okay. So let's look at structures. I don't have a lot of time, but I'll try to get into these. So, um, at the team level, there's autonomy structures, human centered structures and collaborative structures. Hopefully I'll have time to get through autonomy and human centered real quick. So autonomy includes autonomy of space, autonomy of practice and autonomy of allocation. And these are team level structures. So teams, um, exhibit a certain structure called autonomy of space, for example. Um, so this office that I mentioned earlier, but it looks like my first office, obviously most of my offices were like this for the first 10 years of my career. They were filled with furniture, bought by people who didn't actually work in it and computers and tools bought by people who didn't actually use them. Um, but if you go to a radically collaborative organization, it is entirely the opposite, right?
Like everything in there is sort of the stuff that the makers themselves wanted to be in there either they get actually got it themselves because they were, you know, empowered to go out with their corporate cards and get it themselves. Or they're just people that made it happen because they wanted him. Um, so radically collaborative workplaces are made by the makers and by the makers. I mean the frontline employees that make the products that the company exists to make. So they'll get the desks. They want to put them in the order that they want them get the whiteboards that they want and roam around. They'll roll couches together and TVs, and they'll make ad hoc conferences and learning sessions. It's a really magical environment to be in autonomous space. It's also nothing new, right? Like Tonomy a space has been around for a long time.
A lot of makers have made their own workspaces for a long time. In fact, a lot of people have made their own homes for a long time and their own gardens for a long time. And when you make something yourself, you really care about it. Um, and a lot of the really beautiful places around the world have been made this way. Um, if you want to read more about kind of that aspect of it, you can read a book called the timeless way of building and another book called the pattern language both by Christopher Alexander, but the point is the same that making your workspace together is a way to care for it. And it helps you make spaces that are safe yet really alive, and you feel free and open to learn from each other in those spaces and to take risks together. And, um, and it all really results in and as a result of learning, caring, and safe making, okay.
So autonomy and practice, um, is another way that makers, um, maintain their autonomy. And it's really important. We saw earlier in this talk that, um, making has become more and more constrained since the beginning of the industrial revolution. But the truth is that there, that whole host of problems discovered with that the high expectations put on makers coupled with a low autonomy. So they don't have much choice about how they go about to do something that there have a lot of high expectations for doing. It leads to all kinds of stress disorders and anxiety disorders and depression disorders. And those themselves ended up hurting you in other ways. In fact, over the last five years, a ton of studies have come out that point out that like this kind of stuff causes people to die, like heart attacks and all kinds of stress-related illnesses workers in one studies from the journal and personnel psychology in 2016, they found that workers were 15.4% more likely to die of stress-related illnesses, um, when the job demands high and the autonomy as low.
So autonomy is really, really important. So it's not surprising that radically collaborative organizations have a lot of autonomy. And one of the ways they do it as autonomy of practice by that, I mean, they, they make together in ways that they decide on themselves, no one comes in and says, you must make this way. They do it themselves. Um, so you can see that in all kinds of different ways, not just in how they make, like where they make. Um, if you have a team of parents in the radically collaborative, they may decide, you know, what, it would be better for us parents. If we could all just work from home and be distributed and communicate over texts, and it's the messaging and video conferencing and stuff. And I would be able to get my kids to school or, you know, get them off the bus in the afternoon more easily or whatever it is, right.
And maybe the non-parents on the team just prefer it because I care about the parents and maybe it works better for them. Then again, they may decide, you know what, even though it's harder, we actually really want to all be together. We want to make together well in a radically collaborative organization, they'll make that possible and make it not an anteverted for the parents. So this is again, a picture from Patagonia and what Patagonia did was a great, you all want to be together. Why don't we make daycares and preschools here? And your kids can just come here with you. And they do. They, they give this to their workers. And that's part of the magic of Patagonia and how they've gotten the highest retention rate on the planet, right? 96% retention for all employees, but a hundred percent retention for working mothers, mothers coming back from after giving birth and staying home with their kids.
So that's, uh, that's pretty amazing stats, I think. And hopefully that's, um, gives you some food for thought. So one final way, they do autonomy of allocation. I'm running out of time. But, um, this one, um, I think you, you can see it in kids. Kids are highly intrinsically motivated if you don't metal, um, like my kids they'll read books on their own. They'll draw for hours on their own and just love it. And, um, the truth is though that motivation is actually quite fragile. Like if they're out there picking out the notes of their favorite song on the piano, and then I tell them to practice an etude, forget about it. Like all the motivation is coming. If they're making their own comic book or writing their own short story. And then a teacher comes along and assigns the exact same thing as homework, they'll just cry and kick and scream and drag their feet and they won't want to do it, right?
Like when you metal, their motivation, vanishes and adults are exactly the same. You leave them alone and they will be highly, they'll figure out things that they're highly motivated to do and they'll do it. But if you metal, you can really mess it up. So I want you to imagine an organization actually that has a hundred percent intrinsic motivation. Like everyone loves their job and they care about what they do. That would be amazing, right? And some radically collaborative organizations actually get pretty close to that, but most organizations don't even get close. Right? Most organizations tell people what to do and, you know, they put them on teams that they don't like, and they give them jobs that they didn't want or working on products that don't care about. Um, in fact, Deloitte discovered that only about 13% of workers are actually passionate about their job.
13% really motivated to do their job. That's a depressing number and we can do way better than that. You don't believe me looking open source, open source is this worldwide movement, right? It's probably a million programmers out there doing it every day. And it's all a hundred percent self allocated. No one's telling these people to do any of it, right. They're just getting out there and they're allocating themselves to open source projects and contributing to them because they're just motivated to do it all on their own. And it's not for nothing. Right. That's totally the whole foundation of the worldwide web runs on open source, right? And so radically collaborative organizations have figured this out. They're like, wow, we should do that too. We should actually let makers figure out what they want to do. Uh, and lots of companies have started doing this sack posts and David Allen company and, um, uh, principal nutrition and lip and Springest and, uh, Tom Pressman Warner, the former CEO of get hub.
He gave a talk at OSC con about it and how they do autonomy of allocation. They call it open allocation and get home and how it worked there and led people to work on things they found important and interesting that made them happy. Um, so I think a lot of traditional companies are ignoring intrinsic motivation, but are saying companies are, and they're going to win because of it. Okay. So real quick, there's two things you need to know that about human centerness and RC organizations on teams. Um, they, they are really focused on the humans that they make for, and they do it in two ways through a feature team paradigm, and then design team paradigm. Now the feature team paradigm we've already seen it's group assembly just translated into software development. It means your generalists, the unit of work is the feature. Like the thing, the unit of value that you're actually trying to give to someone that's using your product.
And the other fascinating thing about feature team paradigms is all code is sharing. All code in the organization is shared. Every single team can touch and contribute to every single component. It's like open source within an organization. Um, I don't have time to go into more right now, but if you don't want to wait for my book to come out, check out these two books by creating Lurman in boss, Pono, scaling lean and agile development. Okay. They're also designed teams. Now, when I say design, what does that mean? It doesn't mean decoration. Okay. And it doesn't mean planning. Right? Let's look at books. Books are designed, but they didn't come out of the sky that didn't follow the sky. They weren't the brainchild of some master designer, but that is still a design process. Right. Books started as writing on stone and then we're like, ah, it's hard to move the stone around.
Let's run it. And clay, oh, clay breaks easily. Let's write on this paper, the pirates, oh, uh, we can roll this up and take it with us. That's pretty cool. But you know what? I could just move my eye around and look at anything on a stone, but I have to enroll these scrolls that kind of stinks. I don't want to do that. Julius Caesar didn't like doing it. So what did he do? He started folding them. It's like, Hey, I can just flip through them now. And people were like, man, that's a good idea. Huh? What if we wrote on different pieces of paper and bound them together into a codex, which is a permitted book and that went farther and we make books like we know and love today. Right? So that whole process played out over millennia. We didn't figure it all all at once. A lot of different people were pretty pivotal in that whole process. And that's actually designed. That's what design really is real design. It's just messy.
Sorry. That means I'm out of time. Okay. So they're designed teams, uh, it means you have to get out of the office. You have to actually get out there into the world and work with the people that you're actually making for RC teams do that. Okay. So I don't have time to go into any of the rest of this stuff. I'll have to talk about leadership, support leaders, initiative leaders, no power leaders inside these RC organizations, um, and other ways that organizations support their makers. Um, and I'll, I'll talk more about those traits, adaptive, addictive, and viral, and the outcomes out recruitment and retention out inpatient. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm out of time.